Do You Support Trenton's A.C. Takeover? 
Sipprelle Registered as a Republican in 2007?
| March 10, 2010 Halfacre for Congress spokesman Tom Fitzsimmons revealed today that self-proclaimed Wall Street insider Scott Sipprelle, who is running in a Republican primary in NJ-12, was not even a registered Republican until 2007, according to a search of public records. Fitzsimmons said that the revelation, coming on the heels of Mr. Sipprelle’s donations to House Democrats only months ago, calls into question Sipprelle’s qualifications to be the Republican candidate in District 12.
“When we revealed Mr. Sipprelle’s donations to Chuck Schumer and House Democrats in January and Mr. Sipprelle refused to explain them, people started asking ‘What’s this guy’s story..is he really a Republican?’,” said Fitzsimmons. “So we decided to do a simple check of public records to find out, and it turns out that before 2007, Mr. Sipprelle was not a registered Republican. ”
It appears the only politician of convenience is Halfacre. Sipprelle has been a gentleman, abiding by Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment, every step of the way in this primary. He's been honest, humble and dealt with the issues. Is the only good Republican now one that has been groomed in the 'Good Old Boys' Network', who feeds at the public trough, who only thinks of his own self interests when it comes to party principles? Is the only true Republican one who rides the Chamber of Commerce train to schmooze for money to promote himself rather than earn his money and then decide to enter public service? Shall we now check Halfacre's donors to see if any of them gave to Democrats? Will Halfacre then speak ill of them and give their money back to them? Such ridiculous hypocrisy....and disturbing to true Republicans who have some decorum and just want to beat Holt and save our country.
Reply to this
It's easy to follow the 11th Commandment when you have millions of dollars and the other guy doesn't. So what?
Reply to this
Essentially what you're saying is that it's OK to throw morality out the window when you're in a bind. So in Halfacre's case, becuase he has almost nothing intelligent to say, no money and little public support, all manner of lies, slander and character assasination directed against Sipprelle are ok. You (and Halfacre) are what's wrong with this party.
Reply to this
Um, no, that's not what I'm saying. Sipprelle is subverting the primary process by buying support and avoiding debates. Mike has to fire shots to get this guy to engage or the voters will be robbed of a genuine choice in June.
Reply to this
Um, yes, that was what you were saying by inference. It's easy for Sipprelle to be moral because he has $; Halfacre doesn't have $ so it's hard for him to be moral. If your view prevails in this party we deserve to lose every election. But to your new point; exactly how is Sipprelle subverting the process? Do you know of any voter that has been offered $ for their June vote? No, of course not. And there's a ton of info about there about both candidates already - more than enough for primary voters to have a genuine choice and make an informed decision. And I'm sure debates will come so what's the big deal about it now? Its March!
Reply to this
I agree with you. This warped thinking is what is wrong here and what is ruining our party, and candidates who bulldoze their way through this sage advice should NOT get our party's nomination. How dare any good Republican push aside the words of Ronald Reagan? The man was the most popular president of all time!
Reply to this
I had the privilege of shaking Ronald Reagan's hand at a compaign rally during the Gipper's first run for President. Reagan would never have employed the kinds of tactics being used by the Halfacre campaign. Mike Halfacre is no Ronald Reagan and never will be.
Reply to this
Scott Sipprelle donated to Chuck Schumer. Kind of a major issue! Anyone who thinks Chuck Schumer is worthy of their money does not deserve our vote!
Halfacre all the way!
Reply to this
Halfacre's donors gave to Chris Dodd, Bill White, Carolyn McCarthy and....quite ironically....Frank Pallone. If giving to Democrats is such a "major issue", why isn't Halfacre rejecting THEIR donations? You can't have it both ways.
Reply to this
People are entitled to donate money to any candidate they see fit. As long as they're not criminals or 9/11 "truthers" like the idiots who donate to Ron Paul all the time, who cares?
There's a big difference between campaign donors who make contributions to candidates they like and an opportunist hack like Scott Sipprelle who switched parties for his own personal gain.
Reply to this
Hey Joe....care to retract your comment about switching parties now that the truth has been told? Sipprelle has been a Republican for 22 years! Kind of taints the credibility of your commentaries.
Reply to this
Who cares if Scott was a Republican or not in 2006? He's a Republican now. And he's running this year. And his platform is fiscally conservative. Am I missing the problem with this story? Or is a news slow day for Matt Rooney?
Matt, you need to stop being such an establishment hack. Halfacre is a puppet of some party people. Nothing else to him.
Reply to this
I don't know what the timing is on Sipprelle's registration as a Republican, and presumably his campaign will enlighten us on this. However, just so the record is correct, Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat until 1962 (when he was 51 years old). Sipprelle is in his late 40s, I believe.
Reply to this
Chris Russell runs stupid rich guys and doesn't let them talk. Ask Chris Myers how it all ends up!
Reason enough to back Halfacre.
Reply to this
And Little Silver's Municipal Prosecutor Mike Halfacre's sole campaign contribution was to his mentor (and then State Senator) John Bennett of Little Silver. Gee, what a coincidence. Ask John Bennett how it all ends up.
Reply to this
I am confused, why does this matter? Was he a registered democrat prior to 2007? Do we not like independents?
Most of the country is unaffiliated. I just don't understand the relevance of this story.
If Sipprelle was a registered democrat up until 2007, that is something that begs the question: why switch when Republicans were so unpopular. Iraq, Katrina, a President with sub-40% ratings, a Party with its lowest membership in two decades. Why switch when there was no Tea Parties, Obama and Hillary were essentially fighting for the Presidency, and the Republicans lost 20 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate?
FYI, in many states you don't register with a party when you vote in primaries or general election. You choose which primary you want to vote in when you show up at the polling place.
I must ask, why does the great Mike Halfacre love to talk about Scott Sipprelle so much???
Reply to this
Because it takes the microscopic focus off of himself. Halfacre has baggage....and voters should know...the emperor has no clothes.
Reply to this
I have a question?
To all those people who don't want Siperrelle because he gave to Democrats.
Do you care that in 2006 Diane Gooch gave Fifty Thousand dollars to NY democrat Tom Souuzzi? http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=972463065.
Will the Halfacre campaign condem that even though Gooch is one of his Donors?
According to "Follow the money" in the Five years before that she had given a total of $10,000.00 to republicans in state races.
Or how about the fact that her husband Gave $10,000.00 to Andrew Coumo.http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=972462951
Both donations are larger then even multiple donations given to any one Republican candidate.
I just want to know are we applying the same standard every where?
Reply to this
Sipprelle Camp responded today. Sipprelle has been a registered Republican for over 22 years. He registered in Mercer County in 2007, but apparently had been registered as a Republican in the other counties he has resided in.
Halfacre's research is awful. His polls are crap. His policy positions are weak generalizations and focus group tested rhetoric. Are there any rational Halfacre supporters willing to admit their mistake here?
Reply to this
Perhaps Matt and other bloggers should put up THAT as a headline story!
I believe a retraction is in order?
Reply to this
I am not above acknowledging an error and rectifying it. I retract any and all criticisms related to this issue.
Reply to this